bos_cart_apply_voucher

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'apply'. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the voucher is validated first, if it overrides existing vouchers, what happens on failure, or any side effects on the cart.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It lacks structure (e.g., bullet points) and fails to include essential context for other dimensions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation, one parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error handling, or preconditions like requiring an active cart or valid voucher.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only the parameter name 'voucher_code' is clear; the description adds no detail about format, length, or validation rules, repeating 'voucher code' without enriching semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Apply' and the resource 'voucher code to cart'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bos_cart_remove_voucher' which explicitly removes a voucher, and 'bos_voucher_validate' which only checks validity without applying.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'bos_voucher_validate' or 'bos_cart_remove_voucher'. It lacks any context about preconditions or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.